Literature DB >> 31444687

Perceptions, preferences and acceptability of patient designed 3D printed medicine by polypharmacy patients: a pilot study.

Mark Møller Fastø1, Natalja Genina1, Susanne Kaae1, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong2.   

Abstract

Background 3D-printing, compared to conventional medicine manufacturing technologies, is a versatile and highly modifiable technique that has the flexibility to produce medicine that meet patients' specific requirements such as individualized dosing, but also to customize the appearance of the dosage form, e.g., shape and colour. Objective To explore polypharmacy patients' perceptions and preferences regarding 3D-printed medicine, including their acceptability of patient-designed medicine. Setting The study was conducted in Zealand, Denmark. Method Polypharmacy patients were recruited using convenience sampling (mostly on Facebook) and interviewed twice using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically into five predetermined themes (shapes, colours, embossing designs, polypills, and patient-designed dosage forms). At the first interview patients were asked about their perceptions and preferences towards 3D-printed solid dosage forms, and were presented to different shapes, colours, embossing designs and examples of polypills. They were also invited to design their own medicine from the ones presented. Their self-designed medicines were presented at the second interview, where acceptability of both their self-designed medicine and the concept of designing one's own medicine, was investigated. Main outcome measure Patients' perceptions, preferences towards and acceptability of 3D-printed medicines. Results Eight patients were included. They tended to prefer shapes similar to conventional medicine. Different colours were preferred by different people. The presented embossing designs seemed to be irrelevant. Polypills were generally believed to be a good idea due to the reduction of number of medicines. Acceptability of patient-designed medicine was mainly determined by whether patients thought 3Dprinting technology was reliable or not. Conclusions The patients had various perceptions and preferences of 3D-printed medicine. Factors affecting the patient views were aesthetic (appealing), physiological (swallowing), practical (handling), pedagogical (understanding) and psychological (relate to). Trust in the technology seemed to be important for acceptability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D printing; Denmark; Patient acceptability; Patient-designed medicine; Personalized medicine; Pharmaceutical technology; Semi-structured interviews

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31444687     DOI: 10.1007/s11096-019-00892-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm


  15 in total

1.  3D printing of five-in-one dose combination polypill with defined immediate and sustained release profiles.

Authors:  Shaban A Khaled; Jonathan C Burley; Morgan R Alexander; Jing Yang; Clive J Roberts
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 9.776

2.  3D printing of tablets containing multiple drugs with defined release profiles.

Authors:  Shaban A Khaled; Jonathan C Burley; Morgan R Alexander; Jing Yang; Clive J Roberts
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 5.875

Review 3.  Social aspects in additive manufacturing of pharmaceutical products.

Authors:  Johanna Lind; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong; Susanne Kaae; Jukka Rantanen; Natalja Genina
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Deliv       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 6.648

4.  3D Printed "Starmix" Drug Loaded Dosage Forms for Paediatric Applications.

Authors:  Nicolaos Scoutaris; Steven A Ross; Dennis Douroumis
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Pharmaceutical 3D printing: Design and qualification of a single step print and fill capsule.

Authors:  Derrick M Smith; Yash Kapoor; Gerard R Klinzing; Adam T Procopio
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 5.875

6.  Patient perspectives on multiple medications versus combined pills: a qualitative study.

Authors:  B Williams; A Shaw; R Durrant; I Crinson; C Pagliari; S de Lusignan
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2005-11-10

7.  Acceptability of oral solid medicines in older adults with and without dysphagia: A nested pilot validation questionnaire based observational study.

Authors:  Fang Liu; Ambreen Ghaffur; Jackreet Bains; Shaheen Hamdy
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 5.875

8.  Swallowing difficulties with oral drugs among polypharmacy patients attending community pharmacies.

Authors:  Julien Marquis; Marie-Paule Schneider; Valérie Payot; Anne-Christine Cordonier; Olivier Bugnon; Kurt E Hersberger; Isabelle Arnet
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2013-08-21

Review 9.  Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting.

Authors:  Susanne Kaae; Johanna Lena Maria Lind; Natalja Genina; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2018-04

10.  Additively manufactured medical products - the FDA perspective.

Authors:  Matthew Di Prima; James Coburn; David Hwang; Jennifer Kelly; Akm Khairuzzaman; Laura Ricles
Journal:  3D Print Med       Date:  2016-05-18
View more
  8 in total

1.  A Design Approach to Optimise Secure Remote Three-Dimensional (3D) Printing: A Proof-of-Concept Study towards Advancement in Telemedicine.

Authors:  Xiao Wen Kok; Anisha Singh; Bahijja Tolulope Raimi-Abraham
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-15

2.  Stereolithography Apparatus Evolution: Enhancing Throughput and Efficiency of Pharmaceutical Formulation Development.

Authors:  Carlo Curti; Daniel J Kirby; Craig A Russell
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2021-04-25       Impact factor: 6.321

Review 3.  Polymers for Extrusion-Based 3D Printing of Pharmaceuticals: A Holistic Materials-Process Perspective.

Authors:  Mohammad A Azad; Deborah Olawuni; Georgia Kimbell; Abu Zayed Md Badruddoza; Md Shahadat Hossain; Tasnim Sultana
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 6.321

4.  Scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines - A case study.

Authors:  Netta Beer; Ingrid Hegger; Susanne Kaae; Marie Louise De Bruin; Natalja Genina; Teresa Leonardo Alves; Joelle Hoebert; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong
Journal:  Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm       Date:  2021-09-25

5.  Data-enriched edible pharmaceuticals (DEEPs): Patients' preferences, perceptions, and acceptability of new dosage forms and their digital aspects - An interview study.

Authors:  Meie Chao; Natalja Genina; Netta Beer; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong
Journal:  Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm       Date:  2022-04-22

6.  Preferences of Healthcare Professionals on 3D-Printed Tablets: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Odelia Goh; Wei Jiang Goh; Seng Han Lim; Grace S Hoo; Raymond Liew; Tat Ming Ng
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 6.525

7.  Personalised 3D Printed Medicines: Optimising Material Properties for Successful Passive Diffusion Loading of Filaments for Fused Deposition Modelling of Solid Dosage Forms.

Authors:  Jose R Cerda; Talaya Arifi; Sejad Ayyoubi; Peter Knief; Maria Paloma Ballesteros; William Keeble; Eugen Barbu; Anne Marie Healy; Aikaterini Lalatsa; Dolores R Serrano
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 6.321

Review 8.  The Advent of a New Era in Digital Healthcare: A Role for 3D Printing Technologies in Drug Manufacturing?

Authors:  Ioannis I Andreadis; Christos I Gioumouxouzis; Georgios K Eleftheriadis; Dimitrios G Fatouros
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 6.321

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.